File:The importance of feedback in learning of a wetware computer playing Pong.jpg

English: "486 sessions were analyzed. Significance bars show within-group differences denoted with ∗. Symbols show between-group differences at the given timepoint: # = versus Stimulus; % = versus Silent. The number of symbols denotes the p value cutoff, where 1 = p < 0.05, 2 = p < 0.01, 3 = p < 0.001, and 4 = p < 0.0001. Box plots show interquartile range, with bars demonstrating 1.5× interquartile range, the line marks the median, and ▲ marks the mean. Errors bands = 1 SE.

(A) Schematic showing the stimulation from the 8 sensory electrodes across 40 s of the same gameplay for each of the three conditions. The bar below color codes what phase of stimulation is being delivered, where random stimulation follows a miss and predictable stimulation follows a hit in the Stimulus condition. Note the corresponding absence of any stimulation in the Silent condition and the lack of any change in sensory stimulation in the No-feedback condition. (B) Displays the probability of a certain number of hits occurring in a group at a specific minute. (C) Using different feedback schedules, the Stimulus feedback condition showed significant learning (as in Figure 5A; t = 7.48, p = 1.58−12) and outperformed Silent and No-feedback average rally length. Silent feedback also showed higher performance compared with these groups at T2. (D) Displays difference seen in (C) across day. (E) Shows similar differences versus rest performance for aces across conditions, where the Stimulus group showed significantly fewer aces across time (t = 3.21, p = 0.002). (F) Displays data from (E) across day.

(G and H) Shows that the Stimulus condition showed significant increase (t = 3.21, p = 0.002) across timepoints; however, as in (H), no differences were found across time for long rallies."